The legislative scheme contained in section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, as amended, and section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which provides the court with the power to grant injunctions to prevent gang-related violence and drug dealing activity, is not incompatible with article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The proceedings under that legislation do not involve the determination of a criminal charge for the purposes of article 6 and therefore do not engage article 6.2 or 6.3 of the Convention. Moreover, article 6.1 of the Convention does not require the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. The civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, as prescribed by section 34(2) of the 2009 Act and section 1(2) of the 2014 Act, is appropriate and does not breach article 6 (paras 38, 58, 59).

Where, therefore, the local authority sought and the County Court granted an interim injunction pursuant to section 34 of the 2009 Act and section 1 of the 2014 Act against the defendant and other alleged gang members, and the High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal as to the compatibility of the injunction with article 6 of the Convention on the basis that the proceedings were not in respect of a criminal charge and did not require the criminal standard of proof, and the defendant appealed, contending that the proceedings were in respect of a criminal charge and that even if the proceedings were civil it remained appropriate for the court to declare it incompatible with article 6(1) of the Convention on the grounds that the balance of probability test set out in section 34(2) of the 2009 Act and section 1(2) of the 2014 Act did not meet the overriding criterion of fairness which article 6 required—